Shields are Amazing?!

Users who are viewing this thread

Am I the only one who seems to think the shields in MP are crazy good? It takes multiple flanking people to even get a hit in sometimes. I think it must be a combo of the new block mechanics with shield. Its actually pretty fun to play shielder now.

I’m not complaining, I’m just genuinely wondering if anyone else feels this way because in Warband I felt like the shields weren’t this good. Two handers are still great too though and can counter a shielder.
 
They're definitely buffed, but so unfortunately is the health of players. I find the combat is less lethal when you deal killer blows.
 
They're insanly tanky if you do directional blocks with them yes. If you miss those they go down pretty fast. Nerfing shield hp/durability Bonus they get from blocking the right way has been asked for a long time in beta.
 
Imo shields should both be buffed and nerfed at the same time. Some shields should be lighter and not make you move like a snail (all shields cannot weigh 10 kg) but those should break easier from axes. However the shields who are heavy like the ones are now should be able to take a beating from everything which is not an axe. Shields should be op as they were historically.
 
It seems shields or OP against melee, but UP vs ranged. It is sad that you can get behind a guy and somehow his shield still blocks you. I think the coverage should be nerfed so you actually have to face your enemies. If you get surrounded, that is your own fault. Stick with the team.
 
Imo shields should both be buffed and nerfed at the same time. Some shields should be lighter and not make you move like a snail (all shields cannot weigh 10 kg) but those should break easier from axes. However the shields who are heavy like the ones are now should be able to take a beating from everything which is not an axe. Shields should be op as they were historically.
That's a bad statement to make though. M&B should not follow historical accuracy. Fun/balance > historical realism. It's good to take certain cues from historical realism, but not to the full gravity.

Realistic and fun: Spears are good against cavalry.
Realistic and not fun: Spears are good against everything.
Realistic and fun: Shields are good against archers.
Realistic and not fun: Shields are good against everything.
Realistic and fun: Certain types of armor provide better defense than others.
Realistic and not fun: Armor blocks everything besides super pinpoint attacks.
Realistic and fun: Archery has relatively reliable accuracy.
Realistic and not fun: Arrows typically cannot penetrate any decent armor.

In other words, it's good to take generic cues to offer sensible expectations; but real life was extremely unbalanced and is generally horrible for an exciting gaming experience.
 
Real life - everyone except 10% of players are peasants that do 2 damage to the knight players each hit that take 8000 damage each swing
 
Real life - everyone except 10% of players are peasants that do 2 damage to the knight players each hit that take 8000 damage each swing
10%? Probably more like everyone except the 1% are peasants haha. Mayyyybe their lord was wealthy enough to equip 10% of the local militia with the lowest quality armor and weapons. Everyone else buys with the little coin they have to get a spear and shield.
 
I mean my problem with realism is there hasn’t been a single medieval game where realism was the focus that combat didn’t feel like ****... looking at you kingdom come deliverance! Also I miss troll load outs
 
I feel like the directional shield blocking could be somewhat appropriate for cavalry, but not infantry.

I hate having to point the camera at an archer with the shield up, and then having to adjust the shield's direction. You'll often get shot before it's redirected, and it feels ridiculous. But with cavalry it makes a lot more sense to hold the shield at your sides to block arrows or enemy cavalry attacks while looking slightly forward. (Shield mechanics on cavalry were always a problem in Warband, I think just because of the limited animation not showing how far they could cover themselves against melee attacks.) If Bannerlord's shield mechanics are cumbersome, then maybe cavalry deserve to have it (not infantry) as a tradeoff for their other abilities. Although, again, it could actually be a useful feature for them specifically. It's a strange situation where I want cavalry to have more tradeoffs/downsides to make the superior class infantry be less frustrated and hard done by, but whenever I do play as cavalry I feel thankful for how much you can get away with.

For infantry, in Warband, the normal shield mechanic was very quick, intuitive and satisfying, and I would much prefer it. Pointing quickly with the shield at different oppenents' incoming attacks is a lot better. Bannerlord's directional shield blocking for infantry is cumbersome and pointless. I was hoping they'd improve upon shields for infantry by removing the ridiculous features of footshots and shooting through shields, but it looks like it's become worse. So, in summary, I'd just remove the directional shield blocking for infantry.

 
Shields are in this interesting spot where they are incredible in melee but terrible at blocking arrows
Yeah but honestly they probably should be worse at blocking arrows than in Warband. The whole ghost range of shields in Warband when it came to blocking arrows looked really silly and I hope they keep it out of Bannerlord. But yeah some shields are really easy to shoot under.
 
Back
Top Bottom